Re: Older QC reports

Brion L. Webster wrote:


Even if these aren't the "shiniest toy" CodeGear wants to put forward, they're still bread and butter to some of us, and continuing to ignore them is continuing to ignore us.

Yes. Even if they do this without their intention.

Ah, well, that's my emotional feeling. Hard to be rational on emotions, I suppose.


Yes, of course. But at least some guys from CG think that you must be 'rational'. Beware, isn't a 'fault' from their side, or a (let's say) 'lack of understanding for the poor man', it's just (AFAIS) a small lack of experience on the 'human plane'. It's sometimes common for geeks. In fact, we're all mediocre mortals with our goods and bads, isn't? <g> (see for ex. http://norvig.com/performance-review.html - highly recommended reading btw)

I'm not arguing that QC works or doesn't work. I think community feedback is vital, and QC allows for that. I don't think QC has had enough internal resources and priority at Borland in the past, nor do I think CodeGear takes fixing "legacy" code as importantly as it should.


Yes. But, imho, it's worth mentioning that they try... humm... not to hard though, well, at least is something...

In all honesty, I think presenting a "release candidate" list of items, with some items carrying 1000 vote weights, some carrying 1 vote rates (engineers estimates of difficulty to implement), then letting us vote on things to include in Delphi X, would be more useful, and garner more effective feedback.


This is a shade of a much more elaborated method of gathering requirements (used with great success at AT&T/Bell Labs IIRC) in which each issue takes two votes on from the community ('against/not interested/nice to have/must have/show stopper' etc.) and one from the internal team ('won't do/risky/we don't know how to do it/we think that we can do it/we know exactly how to do it') etc., both votes being public, and because here we have the great advantage that both community & company are programmers - advantage which CG, almost inexplicably, doesn't leverage as it should - the discussion based on the voting can be much more effective, compared with the case of AT&T.

Imho, a better variant would be if those who are interested among us to propose & sustain their proposals in a specialized newsgroup in a discussion with (someone from) CG staff and the community. But for this we need a commitment from CG that what's discussed they will do their best to be implemented and, of course, a ng where to chat these.

--

m. th.
.